Canonical URL availability
-
Hi
We have a website selling cellphones. They are available in different colors and with various data capacity, which slightly changes the URL.
For instance:
- Black iphone, 16GB: www.site.com/iphone(black,16,000000000010204783).html
- White iphone, 16GB: www.site.com/iphone(white,16,000000000010204783).html
- White iphone, 24GB: www.site.com/iphone(white,24,000000000010204783).html
Now, the canonical URL indicates a standard URL:
But this URL is never physically available. Instead, a user gets 301 redirected to one of the above URLs. Is this a problem? Does a URL have to be "physically" available if it is indicated as canonical?
-
Thanks Dirk for your great in-depth response!
I will now check with developers what the estimated effort would be. Making the canonical URL available will let me sleep better at night before releasing the new site version.
I think the risk shouldn't be huge if we cannot do this and will not waste too many ressources on this (unless, of course, we see a negative impact, which I will then report here;)Best,
Phil -
With a 301 you communicate that the requested resource is no longer available (The requested resource has been assigned a new permanent URI and any future references to this resource SHOULD use one of the returned URIs- source: http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html)
If you look at the definition of a canonical url - it indicates the preferred URL to use, so that the search results will be more likely to show users that URL structure. (Google attempts to respect this, but cannot guarantee this in all cases.)
So basically what you are telling to Google:
On your site you ask Google not to index site.com/A.htm - but rather to index url site.com/B.htm
On the url site.com/B.htm you put a 301 to site.com/C.htm - in other words force Google to index C.htm rather than B.htm (the 301 indicates that the page has permanently moved to a new location - so is no longer available on B.htm)So in fact - you ask Google not to index A.htm but C.htm instead. Rather than doing this in a complicated 2step process using both canonical & redirect it would be simpler & make more sense to directly put a canonical url on A.htm with C.htm as canonical.
In your case you could create www.site.com/iphone but if it's identical to www.site.com/iphone(black,16,000000000010204783).html I don't think you will gain a lot (especially if it requires a lot of development)
rgds,
Dirk
-
Thank you Dirk!
I did look at the article you pointed out, but could not initially find that information:
"Double-check that your rel=canonical target exists (it’s not an error or “soft 404”)"However, for me this is not 100% conclusive. The page does exist, in a way, but it's redirected. I know that to be on the safe side, we should better make it available. But as it would mean a lot of additional programming effort, I am trying to find out if it really is necessary. Thats' why I was hoping someone already has some experience with this...
-
Normally a canonical url should be physically available - see also: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.be/2013/04/5-common-mistakes-with-relcanonical.html
With a canonical you indicate the Search engines which page you want to have listed in the SERP's. A page which is 301'd to another page will never get listed in the results.
In your case - it's probably better to use the url where your are redirecting to as canonical - or to create a page www.site.com/iphone that is not redirected
rgds,
Dirk
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
URL structure for new product launch
Hello, I work for a company (let's call it companyX) that is about to launch a new product, lets call it ProductY. www.CompanyX.com is an old domain with a good domain authority. The market in which ProductY is being launched is extremely competitive. The marketing department want's to launch ProductY on a new website at www.ProductY.com.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Lvet
My opinion is that we should instead create a subfolder with product information at www.CompanyX.com/ProductY. By doing this we could leverage on the existing domain authority of CompanyX.com Additionally for campaigns, and in order to have a more memorable URL we could use ProductY.com with a 301 redirect to www.CompanyX.com/ProductY What do you think is the best strategy from an SEO point of view? Cheers
Luca0 -
Full title in url
Hi to all, what is the best url structure, to have all words in the url or to tweak url like Yoast suggest? If we remove some words from url , not focus keyword but stop words and other keywords to have shorter url will that impact search rankings? example.com/one-because-two-for-three-on-four - long url, moz crawl error, yoast red light example.com/one-two-three-four - moz ok, yoast ok Where one is a focus keyword.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | WalterHalicki0 -
HTTP URL hangover after move to HTTPS
A clients site was moved to https recently. It's a small site with only 6 pages. One of the pages is to advertise an emergency service. HTTPS move worked fine. Submitted https to webmaster tools, submitted sitemap. 301 redirects. Rankings preserved. However, a few weeks later doing the site:example.com there are two pages for the emergency service. One says https the other is http. But the http one says the correct SEO title and the https one says an old SEO title. This wasn't expected. When you click the HTTP URL link it 301 redirects to the HTTPS url and the correct SEO title is displayed in the browser tab. When you click the HTTPS url link it returns a 200 and the correct SEO title is shown as expected in the browser tab. Anyone have any idea what is going on? And how to fix? Need to get rid of the HTTP URL but in the site search it contains the correct title. Plus- why is it there anyway?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AL123al0 -
Repeat name and location in URL or no ?
in this url www.stjeromemitsubishi.ca, is it a good thing to repeat the name and location in the url but with ''-''sign between? ex: www.stjeromemitsubishi.ca/partsandservice/stjerome-mitsubishi-contact.aspx
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DavidPilon0 -
Spaces in URL line
Hi Gurus, I recently made the mistake of putting a space into a URL line between two words that make up my primary key word. Think www.example.com/Jelly Donuts/mmmNice.php instead of www.example.com/JellyDonuts/mmmNice.php This mistake now needed fixing to www.example.com/Jelly Donuts/mmmNice.php to pass W3, but has been in place for a while but most articles/documents under 'Jelly Donuts' are not ranking well (which is probably the obvious outcome of the mistake). I am wondering whether the best solution from an SEO ranking viewpoint is to: 1. Change the article directory immediately to www.example.com/JellyDonuts/mmmNice.php and rel=canonical each article to the new correct URL. Take out the 'trash' using robots.txt or to 301 www.example.com/Jelly Donut to the www.example.com/JellyDonut directory? or perhaps something else? Thanks in advance for your help with this sticky (but tasty) conundrum, Brad
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BM70 -
Include Cross Domain Canonical URL's in Sitemap - Yes or No?
I have several sites that have cross domain canonical tags setup on similar pages. I am unsure if these pages that are canonicalized to a different domain should be included in the sitemap. My first thought is no, because I should only include pages in the sitemap that I want indexed. On the other hand, if I include ALL pages on my site in the sitemap, once Google gets to a page that has a cross domain canonical tag, I'm assuming it will just note that and determine if the canonicalized page is the better version. I have yet to see any errors in GWT about this. I have seen errors where I included a 301 redirect in my sitemap file. I suspect its ok, but to me, it seems that Google would rather not find these URL's in a sitemap, have to crawl them time and time again to determine if they are the best page, even though I'm indicating that this page has a similar page that I'd rather have indexed.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | WEB-IRS0 -
URL for New Product
Hi, We are creating a section on our established existing website to display our new marketplace product & associated category pages. This marketplace will be a section of the site where our users can sell online training courses that they've created. It will be branded on our site as the Marketplace. Is it important to include 'marketplace' in the URL? Or would it be better to include a relevant keyword such as 'training-courses' instead? Or both? I've assumed I shouldn't use both as that would increase the length of the URLs and number of subfolders.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mindflash0 -
Subdirectory URLs
If I have category pages for my site; is it better to use http://example.com/category/category or just http://example.com/category? Also, I'm creating a new section of the site; a resource center. Should the URLs of the pages in the resource center be http://example.com/learn/page or just http://example.com/page What are the reasons for the better choice?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Visually0